The other type of conspiracy-theory — exemplified against ‘organized crime’ — attributes the source of harm to an actual organization of specific persons who are defined not according to their race or ethnicity or religion or other generic category but instead are defined by their individual actions and responsibilities and powers within an organization, which has a purported organization-chart, showing the powers and roles of each of the individuals in it. What’s alleged is this second type of conspiracy-theory is an organizational crime, by specific individual persons — nothing that’s done by an amorphous ethnicity.

Whereas the first-mentioned type of conspiracy-theory does not specify how a particular blamed person contributes to the harmful outcome that is being alleged, and is instead bigotry against that individual’s religion, race, ethnicity, or other trait-defined group; the second-mentioned type of conspiracy-theory isn’t bigoted, but instead real: it does describe and detail an alleged conspiracy. In fact, it’s the basis for the RICO — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — and for most prosecutions of white-collar or especially executive crimes, such as organized frauds, which are real crimes, by real individuals, in real criminal enterprises, against real victims.

Consequently, the bigoted type of ‘conspiracy’-theory is not actually alleging any conspiracy at all; it’s merely expressing its believer’s bigotry, his negative stereotype of some group. That’s all it is. The ‘conspiracy’ itself is simply a con — none is even asserted there, though the term «conspiracy» is falsely being used in order supposedly to refer to a ‘conspiracy’. By contrast, the second type of conspiracy-theory is, in fact, alleging a conspiracy, and is blaming individuals within an organization, not blaming some ethnicity or etc., which have nothing to do with the matter (because all real conspiracies are between individuals who are in contact with each other in order to perpetrate it — and are not amongst any amorphous group of people, who might not even be in contact, with each other, at all).

I point this out because I have noticed that articles which I write that allege coordination amongst billionaires to put pressures into place within their media-organizations, to distort the truth (to make lying and hiding certain things necessary for career-advancement of their ‘journalists’), elicit an unfortunately large proportion of reader-comments from anti-Semites, haters of Jews, who automatically think «Jews» when they hear or read «billionaires,» and some of these anti-Semites then blame me as the writer, because I’m not blaming «the Jews» nor even «Israel» nor «the Zionists» (the latter being the most favored term among many anti-Semites who want to blame the evils of the apartheid, racist nation, Israel, even when that nation, Israel, is actually irrelevant to the given matter). Some of my articles identify, for blame, «billionaires» or «the aristocracy,» which I allege to be organized via the laws, and via their mutual contracts with one-another, and via their corporations and corporate boards, and via specific organizations such as the Bilderberg group, etc., by which they indeed can privately coordinate their actions against the public, even if those individuals who are coordinating together in this way are not labeled by the government as being «criminal enterprises» or «organized crime.» It might be a ‘respectable’ type of organized crime. It might entail cooperation between the U.S. aristocracy and foreign aristocracies. Not every harmful conspiracy is technically illegal. Billionaires pay for most of the political campaigns in ‘democratic nations’, and purchase by that means the writing of laws that allow what they do, or that include loopholes in order to permit it. There can be a criminal conspiracy even if no law against it exists and no RICO-type of investigation or prosecution is ever performed regarding it. (And, of course, some conspiracies are good — for example, the world today would be lots worse than it is if the conspiracy amongst FDR, Churchill, and Stalin, had not existed and had not won World War II.)

There is nothing inherently wrong with a real conspiracy-theory, and a given conspiracy-theory might be right; but, unfortunately, almost all alleged ‘conspiracy-theorists’ are simply bigots, people who lack the intelligence to distinguish between a real conspiracy-theory, and a fake one. Those people aren’t intelligent enough to consider whether a real conspiracy-theory is true, because all that they can think of when considering a possible ‘conspiracy’ are stereotypes; and a stereotype has no role whatsoever in any authentic conspiracy.

However, if billionaires do ever collude together in order to control a country, those people will be extremely happy that most of the public think of stereotypes when they discuss what they think might be ‘a conspiracy’, because then the public won’t be at all considering real conspiracies, which have nothing whatsoever to do with stereotypes. Such stereotypic thinking by fools — mere bigots — lets the real conspirators off the hook.

The best strategy for conspirators to ‘argue’ against the existence of a conspiracy that really does exist, is thus for them to call the mere allegation of its existence a ‘conspiracy theory’ — when the conspirators are referring there actually only to a fake ‘conspiracy theory’, a flinging-around of negative stereotype(s), not to any authentic type of conspiracy at all. And, the same individuals who aren’t intelligent enough to understand what the term «conspiracy» actually refers to, will thus be the likeliest individuals also to be fooled into thinking that an authentic conspiracy-theory is false. The dupes are manipulable in both respects: thinking that some stereotype ‘explains’ their problem, and thinking that the actual individual malefactors are being unfairly criticized as causing it.

However, just because a given conspiracy-theory is authentically a conspiracy-theory doesn’t necessarily mean that the theory is true. A real conspiracy-theory might be true, or it might be false, depending upon the facts of the given case; but a fake ‘conspiracy’ theory is always false, because no actual «conspiracy» is even being alleged in it. Whenever the public are considering a fake ‘conspiracy-theory’, they’re fools — perhaps fools of some real conspirators, but, in any event, fools who can’t even conceive of what a real conspiracy looks like. Anyone who wants to see some of the guts of a real conspiracy, should therefore read a detailed description of a real conspiracy, in which two psychopaths married each other and then divorced and the ugly truth behind how they had become enormously wealthy was revealed to the public, when New York Times reporter Nicholas Confessore obtained access to the private records in the case, from an old college friend who was litigating the wife’s case against her former husband. It’s only one side of that case, but the other side of it looks sleazy also. Confessore’s article was titled «How to Hide $400 Million», and it’s a beaut. The international conspirators who hide «at least $21 trillion of the world’s financial wealth» in secret offshore accounts were finally forced by that lawyer — Confessore’s friend — to turn against the husband and force him to go into international hiding, in order for the entire international racket not to become more fully exposed. After all, $400 million is less than one five-hundred-thousandth of the entire $21T. It’s just pocket-change to such an organization. And, obviously, what’s revealed there, about it, is merely an infinitessimal tip of this global iceberg. But it gives some idea, at least, of the type of operation that it is. The only principals who were discussed in the case were the couple who were fighting over the fortune. Everyone else who was mentioned in it were merely agents for those two contestants. And, of course, people who don’t understand the very concept of a «conspiracy,» wouldn’t know the difference, either, between a principal, and an agent.

Britain’s Daily Mail published photos of both of the principals, and of the husband’s mistress. More recently, Bloomberg News published photos of one of the couple’s at-least-four homes when the wife revealed that she had gotten at least the one in Toronto and placed it on sale, for $26 million. The fruits of conspiracies can be very sweet, at least for some of the participants. In fact, on 10 June 2017, Britain’s Mirror tabloid ran an article about the wife’s glamorous life and published photos of her in «her £4million waterfront mansion in Florida» and telling of her having been cheated by her husband, but the article, sympathetic to the wife, never even mentioned the scams (such as these) by which she and her husband had extracted that wealth from duped consumers in Florida (and this couple actually had victims all over the world, the vast majority of whom got nothing in that — or any — settlement).

A person who doesn’t believe that conspiracies exist, doesn’t know how any large international corporation became the way it is, because the success of every one of them depends necessarily upon conspiracies, even if only of the entirely legal and honest type — which is possible, at least in theory, even if never in practice.

VIDEOS

Facebook has "hired" the Atlantic Council - a NATO, US government, and foreign funded "think tank" to determine whether posts or members are authentic or whether they are "agents of a foreign power." How is it possible that US government's directly funded entities are collaborating with corporations to decide what speech is to be prohibited?